---
name: amanthro-review-process
description: Use when you need to understand how American Anthropologist (AA) evaluates a manuscript — editorial screening, anonymous peer review under an ethics of care, the four-field editorial board, decision categories, and how section choice shapes the path. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.
---

# Review Process (amanthro-review-process)

Knowing how AA screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting. AA is the
four-field AAA flagship, uses **anonymous peer review**, and explicitly practices an **ethics of care**
toward authors and reviewers — but the editorial bar is still four-field significance plus sound,
ethical evidence.

## When to trigger

- Before submitting, to stress-test against editorial screening grounds
- Choosing the right **section** (the review path differs for forums, multimodal, review essays)
- Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations
- Understanding what reviewers are asked to weigh, including ethics

## How AA review works

1. **Editorial screening first.** The editor-in-chief and associate editors (a **four-field board**)
   assess fit, four-field significance, and obvious ethics issues before sending out for review. A
   technically fine but subfield-bound paper can be returned or redirected here.
2. **Anonymous peer review.** Reviewers typically do not see author identities; anonymize the manuscript
   and file name and provide a separate title page (see `amanthro-submission`). Expect expert,
   sometimes cross-subfield, reviewers.
3. **Ethics of care.** AA states it strives for an ethics of care in editing and asks reviewers to do
   the same — constructive, non-destructive review. This does not lower the bar; it shapes the tone.
4. **Decision categories.** Reject; major or minor revisions (revise-and-resubmit); accept. R&R is the
   common positive outcome; exact portal labels and acceptance-rate figures are not fixed in this pack.
5. **Section-specific paths.** Vital Topics Forums and special sections are often **invited or proposed**
   (and AA may not always be accepting proposals); Multimodal and Public Anthropologies have their own
   editors and expectations; Review Essays are commissioned or pitched.

## Shape the paper to pass

- Make **four-field significance** explicit early (avoids the "subfield-only" redirect).
- Engage the relevant conversations, including across subfields and beyond the metropolitan canon.
- Clear **ethics** up front: consent, anonymization, heritage/repatriation, community accountability —
  an unresolved ethics concern is a serious problem at AA (see `amanthro-transparency-and-data`).
- Match the **section** to the work; don't send a 1,500-word engaged piece through the Research-Article
  path or a full study to a forum.

## Anti-patterns

- Submitting a single-subfield paper to a four-field flagship with no broad framing
- Ignoring an obvious related literature or a non-metropolitan scholarship
- Treating reviewers' ethics-of-care tone as a sign the bar is low
- Pitching a Vital Topics Forum when proposals are closed; mis-targeting the section
- Leaving consent/heritage/anonymization unresolved and hoping review will overlook it

## Output format

```
【Screening check】fit / four-field significance / ethics — any red flags?
【Significance】broad enough to clear "subfield-only"? [Y/N]
【Literature engaged】incl. cross-subfield + non-metropolitan? [Y/N]
【Ethics cleared】consent / anonymization / heritage resolved? [Y/N]
【Section】Research Article / Vital Topics / World / Public / Multimodal / Review Essay (right path?)
【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R / (rare) accept
【Next】amanthro-submission (or amanthro-rebuttal if decided)
```

## What reviewers are asked to weigh (anticipate it)

| Reviewer focus | What it means at AA | How to pre-empt it |
|----------------|--------------------|--------------------|
| Four-field significance | Does this matter beyond the home subfield? | State the cross-field stake in the introduction |
| Evidence & rigor | Is the claim grounded; is interpretation disciplined? | Ground each claim; name and adjudicate the rival reading |
| Reflexivity | Is the author's position visible and accounted for? | Make positionality part of the argument |
| Ethics & care | Consent, anonymization, heritage, no harm | Resolve and state these before submitting |
| Citational practice | Are marginalized/regional voices engaged? | Cite beyond the metropolitan canon |
| Craft | Is it well written and legible across fields? | Polish with `amanthro-writing-style` |

## Calibration anchors (hedged)

- The **ethics of care** shapes the *tone* of review (constructive, non-destructive), not the *bar*:
  expect rigorous, sometimes cross-subfield critique even in a generous letter.
- A **revise-and-resubmit is the normal positive outcome**; treat it as an invitation, not a near-miss
  (see `amanthro-rebuttal`). Outright first-round acceptance is rare.
- Decision-category names, reviewer counts, and acceptance rates are not published as fixed figures in
  the checked public guidance; use the live Research Exchange/editorial letter wording.

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — peer-review model, ethics-of-care statement, section types, editorial board